Bibliography on Vancouver Lake Watershed, including Burnt Bridge Creek, Flushing Channel, Lake River, and Salmon Creek |
|||||
| Entire Bibliography (.doc format) | Summary | Title Page and Acknowledgements | Timeline | ||
| Vancouver Lake | Burnt Bridge Creek | Salmon Creek | Lake River | Related Links | |
| Bibliography 1900-50 | Bibliography 1951-60 | Bibliography 1961-70 | Bibliography 1971-80 | Bibliography 1981-90 | Bibliography 1991-Present |
Bibliography of Vancouver Lake watershed, including Burnt Bridge Creek, Flushing Channel, Lake River, and Salmon Creek
A history of restoration efforts for Vancouver Lake
Dames
& Moore. 1979. Proposal: Vancouver Lake Reclamation Operations
Plan. Port of Vancouver.
Vancouver Lake is a shallow, highly polluted 2,600 acre lake in the Columbia River lowlands of southwestern Clark County. Considerable research and analysis over the past 12 years have culminated in a Rehabilitation Plan (Dames & Moore, 1977) that is acceptable in principle to all parties and agencies involved.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) subsequently issued an environmental impact statement on lake restoration. Several alternative actions were evaluated in the EIS, among them a four-culvert and channel flushing scheme in concert with lake dredging according to recommendations in the Rehabilitation Plan excluding the sailing area. Implementing this plan would entail dredging an estimated 8.1 million cubic yards from the lake. EPA, in their list of conditions of grant award, specified approximately 9 million yards would be removed, and emphasized Alternative 2B as their preference. This plan is shown in Figure 1.
EPA grant conditions also removed Site VA (Dames & Moore, 1977) from consideration as a dredged material disposal site, and restricted Site VI to the extent of Alternative 7 of the Corps of Engineers flood control diking project.
The Port of Vancouver (POV) accepted the grant award, also conditionally. At completion of the operations plan, the final conditions of lake reclamation would have to be acceptable, since the POV could not commit itself to a "construct at any cost" project. Some conditions, criteria, and restrictions that might be imposed by regulatory agencies or others could generate tremendous cost, which presumably the POV would then be responsible to fund to some degree or effect funding under the matching grant situation involved.
Files Available for Document:
Last modified:
April 16, 2008
Please contact: StreamNet Library if
you have any questions about this page.